By comparison html/js/css have produced fairly good results.
Um, based on what? My browser routinely takes up gigabytes of memory just to show me 'one PDF' worth of content. Analytics scripts steal my CPU time/power that I pay for. HTML/CSS's shitty ambiguous spec without a reference implementation means that no two browsers will ever work alike. And if you're on mobile, all that means you're battery life is screwed. And um.. security?
So you are arguing java and activeX are better than web apps? Because that is the comparison you are responding too.
The 1/100 of a penny worth of electricity that analytic scripts cost you a year is worse than the security nightmare of java applets and activeX? Come on.
So you are arguing java and activeX are better than web apps? Because that is the comparison you are responding too.
Sure, I personally don't see why that's controversial. They're no different from running JS or flash/silverlight plugins or what have you. My problem with HTML/JS/CSS is that they suck right from the design down to the implementation. With Java and ActiveX , the suckage exists, but mostly at the configuration, deployment and implementation steps. They are redeemable in my view.
The 1/100 of a penny worth of electricity that analytic scripts cost you a year is worse than the security nightmare of java applets and activeX? Come on.
I see the nightmare coming from IE, FF and Chrome in terms of browser vulnerabilities. Java's installed base is tiny compared to those three.
Also, my CPU usage routinely goes over 50% (E8400) when browsing. I don't think reading a bunch of text should require you CPU to spike like that. I admit the analytics part is an aside because you can bolt it onto Java or ActiveX as well.
The fact that Java, ActiveX, Flash, and JavaScript became goto (sic) technologies only underlines how much the web has always been the poster child for 'worse is better.'
The irony is that the web stack has become so complex you may as well build apps using one of the many mainstream compiled languages for app logic, and work with an improved DSL for styling and markup. (Which is more or less what Go+SASS/etc are becoming anyway.)
The inevitable next stage will happen when the W3C discovers functional programming - I'm guessing around 2020 - and we'll have Greenspun our way to the 10th law again.
If you want it to change, develop something to change it.
I'm not aware of a single technology with a goal to fundamentally upset any of the things you listed.
Personally, I'm satisfied with javascript development. Is it perfect? No. Are there lots of things that could be done better? Absolutely.
But it frustrates me how many people complain about how much it sucks when there are no projects (with any support) attempting to really change things. If my opinion of javascript is wrong and it really is that bad - I'd think there would be more of a movement to move away from it.
But it frustrates me how many people complain about how much it sucks when there are no projects (with any support) attempting to really change things. If my opinion of javascript is wrong and it really is that bad - I'd think there would be more of a movement to move away from it.
Programmers can't always just start something "new", they have to work on existing platforms to be able to deploy their software quickly and efficiently. This video explain than even though javascript was never intended to run a 3D engine, it now is able to. As he explains it in the video, it's a hack, and it doesn't work that well for most binaries.
If I could, I would start a new browser, without html, with more dynamic languages, with a clang VM, with protocol buffers, etc. But in this age of patents and market shares in IT, I don't expect having enough exposure to have users installing this future browser. If one software company can't deploy its app on the dominant systems, it's screwed. But it doesn't mean JS fits every possible job.
Comments
Um, based on what? My browser routinely takes up gigabytes of memory just to show me 'one PDF' worth of content. Analytics scripts steal my CPU time/power that I pay for. HTML/CSS's shitty ambiguous spec without a reference implementation means that no two browsers will ever work alike. And if you're on mobile, all that means you're battery life is screwed. And um.. security?
http://secunia.com/vulnerability-review/browser_security.htm...
So you are arguing java and activeX are better than web apps? Because that is the comparison you are responding too.
The 1/100 of a penny worth of electricity that analytic scripts cost you a year is worse than the security nightmare of java applets and activeX? Come on.
Sure, I personally don't see why that's controversial. They're no different from running JS or flash/silverlight plugins or what have you. My problem with HTML/JS/CSS is that they suck right from the design down to the implementation. With Java and ActiveX , the suckage exists, but mostly at the configuration, deployment and implementation steps. They are redeemable in my view.
I see the nightmare coming from IE, FF and Chrome in terms of browser vulnerabilities. Java's installed base is tiny compared to those three.
Also, my CPU usage routinely goes over 50% (E8400) when browsing. I don't think reading a bunch of text should require you CPU to spike like that. I admit the analytics part is an aside because you can bolt it onto Java or ActiveX as well.
The fact that Java, ActiveX, Flash, and JavaScript became goto (sic) technologies only underlines how much the web has always been the poster child for 'worse is better.'
The irony is that the web stack has become so complex you may as well build apps using one of the many mainstream compiled languages for app logic, and work with an improved DSL for styling and markup. (Which is more or less what Go+SASS/etc are becoming anyway.)
The inevitable next stage will happen when the W3C discovers functional programming - I'm guessing around 2020 - and we'll have Greenspun our way to the 10th law again.
If you want it to change, develop something to change it.
I'm not aware of a single technology with a goal to fundamentally upset any of the things you listed.
Personally, I'm satisfied with javascript development. Is it perfect? No. Are there lots of things that could be done better? Absolutely.
But it frustrates me how many people complain about how much it sucks when there are no projects (with any support) attempting to really change things. If my opinion of javascript is wrong and it really is that bad - I'd think there would be more of a movement to move away from it.
You should watch this https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...
Programmers can't always just start something "new", they have to work on existing platforms to be able to deploy their software quickly and efficiently. This video explain than even though javascript was never intended to run a 3D engine, it now is able to. As he explains it in the video, it's a hack, and it doesn't work that well for most binaries.
If I could, I would start a new browser, without html, with more dynamic languages, with a clang VM, with protocol buffers, etc. But in this age of patents and market shares in IT, I don't expect having enough exposure to have users installing this future browser. If one software company can't deploy its app on the dominant systems, it's screwed. But it doesn't mean JS fits every possible job.
There actually is a project that wants to replace the html/css/javascript browsers: Adobe Air.
http://www.adobe.com/nl/products/air.html
For some reasons it's not really taking off.
it might not be open source or subject to standardization
It's the worst web platform except for all other platforms.